( 2025:HHC:15003 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 239 of 2025. Decided on : 21 st May, 2025. Bansi Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Leela Devi & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The petitioner herein is seeking to challenge the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 446 of 2022 by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned trial Court has noticed that the petitioner herein, who was defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court had appeared in response to the summons issued to him on 04.03.2023. Thereafter, he had engaged the counsel, who represented him w.e.f. 04.03.2023. The impugned order came to be passed on 26.03.2024 and evidently till date 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:15003 ) despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner herein had not filed the written statement. 4. Thus, I see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is no error of jurisdiction either. Further, it can be seen that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed on 26.03.2024 after almost one year. 5. The reason now being assigned for not filing the written statement or delay in filing the instant petition is that the petitioner was not keeping good health. In support, certain documents have been placed on record, however, I am not convinced. The documents placed on record are OPD slips and there is no medical opinion that the petitioner was not in a position to instruct his counsel for filing of written statement. 6. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 21st May, 2025. (jai)